Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Elk Grove Activist Request Official Investigation Into City Manager, Attorney Misconduct Allegations
By Connie Conley
If there is trouble in paradise, a bright light needs to on shine the problem, and the third house needs to kick in along with a strong citizen watchdog group. With that said, after all the emails, the postings on Elk Grove News and with legal advice (because I was named in the letter sent to the council by a city employee), I have asked the Elk Grove City Council to conduct an independent investigation regarding the allegations of a hostile work environment at city of Elk Grove under city manager Laura Gill and city attorney Susan Burns Cochran.
Years ago, I asked for one regarding former city manager John Danielson and former city attorney Tony Manzanetti and was flat out refused by the city council. I didn't push the issue but in retrospect, I should have. I think we all know how that turned out for us taxpayers. I am not going to make that same mistake twice. As the saying goes, "Shame on me if I do."
This may not make me popular with a couple of the council members and certainly not with Ms. Gill or Mr. Cochran, but I only have to look back at the Sacramento County Grand Jury and the two years it took me for former Council member Michael Leary to be held accountable for threatening citizens. It wasn't easy (no, it was downright stressful) but again it needed to be done. And guess what folks, seems that I was right all along about Mr. Leary.
I would rather the council spend a couple of thousand now than hundreds of thousands later. And shouldn't Laura Gill welcome outside validation that she fosters a healthy work environment as she claims? If this city government of ours is truly committed to honesty, transparency, accountability and respect, there should be no refusal now. We shall see.
As the say goes, "If you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
I applaud Ms. Conley's sense of civic responsibility and agree that there must be a formal internal investigation into this matter regarding Ms. Gill and Ms. Cochran ASAP. The hard working staff employees deserve better than intimidation and a hostile workplace. To quote itstime.com
"Hostile Workplace is one where people can not do their best work or be their most productive due to conditions in their workplace. That is, the workplace is hostile to their natural humanity. Notice also the results of a hostile workplace are hostility toward the company's productivity, which directly impact profits in a negative way. People who are unhappy, unhealthy or angry do not work hard.
Hostile workplace is the result of suppression of people's natural ability to express themselves. It is the opposite of a workplace that promotes creativity and vitality. Hostile workplaces are deadly to productivity. They are unhealthy - and potentially deadly - to the people who work in them."
itstime.com futrher explains that,
Hostility consists of:
Verbal abuse against any person, for whatever reason.
Angry interchanges between people over political or territorial boundaries.
One-up-manship and excessive competition.
Power plays and challenges issued over imagined threats to a person's authority.
Attempts to squash a person's ability to be creative and do their work in a way that is most productive for the individual.
Enforcement of ineffective or unreasonable rules for the sole purpose of exerting power over others or to impede progress.
As citizens of Elk Grove WE deserve the very best. Let's support our City workers and get to the bottom of what's going on down on Laguna Palms Way before its too late.
Over the top benefits package:
http://www.elkgrovecity.org/human-resources/printables/benefits-for-staff.pdf
The City is going to go broke just like the state by overpaying for salaries and benefits.
All sorts of things can create what employees deem to be a "hostile work environment". But, while many people toss around that term, most don't understand that there is a legal definition (and it is an important distinction).
A hostile work environment exists when an employee experiences workplace harassment and fears going to work because of the offensive, intimidating, or oppressive atmosphere generated by the harasser based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, veteran status, or, in some jurisdictions, sexual orientation, political affiliation, citizenship status, marital status, or personal appearance. Hostile work environment is also one of the two legal categories of sexual harassment.
The anti-discrimination statutes governing hostile work environment are not a general civility code. Thus, federal law does not prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not extremely serious. Rather, the conduct must be so objectively offensive as to alter the conditions of the individual’s employment. The conditions of employment are altered only if the harassment culminates in a tangible employment action or is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment. The antidiscrimination statutes are not a general civility code. It is an important distinction.
The above comment reads like it is from an attorney. But my association has lots of attorneys as members who have told me that an applicant's attorney would have field day with the city of Elk Grove on multiple stress claims.
And today's stress claims are now taking on a life of their own, nothing is off limits; running the gamet that include personal relationships and sexual dysfunction all stemming from stress on the job.
And with workforce bullying now coming to play with work comp claims as well, the legal fees, if any claims are filed, are fees the taxpayers can ill afford to pay let alone settlement of the claims themselves.
And an employee doesn't lose their job went out on work comp. Care to guess how much rehabilitation and return to work claims cost an insured? Why do you think workers' compensation rates got so out of hand.
We taxpayers have been there, done that. We spent one million dollars alone on the city suing the CSD and vice verse. Sure wish we had that million dollars back. I think the city could use it, don't you?
You don't suppose the "legal" definition enlightenment came from the city attorney's off, do you?
In response to the last two comments. I posted the information in question. I am not a City of EG employee (or an attorney) - but I am someone who has dealt personnally with both hostile work environment claims and work stress claims. The information comes directly from a web search on the words "hostile work environment" - I just copied and pasted for the most part. I can say from personal experience that I have seen claims made that got dismissed because the activity that was causing the hostile work environment was not of a discriminatory nature. Whether we think that is right or wrong - it is the way the definition works. On WC stress claims Ms. Conley seems to forget (or maybe doesn't want to include) the fact that part of that investigation will be into the claimants personal life. If stress is found to be a cause of inability to work part of the process is to determine what percentage of stress is work related and what percentage is coming from outside causes. (I have also experienced co-workers dropping stress claims when they found out that their whole lives were going to be studied to see how much stress was coming from those outside factors.)Most people have stress from more than one source - and most don't want all their personal laundry studied to see how much stress is coming from their personal lives.
I agree completely that bad morale in the workplace is toxic and that steps need to be taken to correct any bullying behavior - I have just seen people latch onto terminology and ideas that don't fit the situation only to lose in the end because they thought they had one type of situation and they really didn't.
In response to the above, I was giving just a brief overview that stress claims now involve a lot of factors.
However, since I do work on the defense side of work comp, I do know about the cost factors. One doctor's report alone can cost $5,000 and that is just the beginning of the burden placed upon the employer (especially if the employer is totally or partially self insured).
I would rather the city spend that $5,000 to save off any claims in the future.
But one point that has been made very clear, we all want the city of Elk Grove's employees to work in a healthy and productive environment.
Our city's motto used to include the word "thriving." That includes our employees.
This request for an investigation wreaks of a self serving special interest at the hands of the requester. A
As it was so succinctly stated "the third house needs to kick in along with a strong citizen watchdog group."
Mark my words. There will be an investigation, waste of taxpayer dollars, and nothing will come of it.
Thanks for nothing.
To the above poster, that's what Mike Leary said as well when Ms. Conley asked for a previous investigation. I guess "birds of a feather" applies here.
The number of "anonymous" posts suggests fear of reprisals including dismissal of any employee known to be in disagreement with administration. How does one (City Council) investigate the fox(es) (City Manager and City Attorney) in charge of the hen house? Good luck with getting any cooperation or truthful accounts from employees. HR reports to the CM. It seems Administration, by abusing its authority, has laid the foundation for unions to step in; if for no other reason, to protect employees against intimidation and harassment.
Post a Comment